Re: [rtcweb] SIP vs Websocket in RTCWeb [was RE: SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?]

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 12 September 2011 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF0A21F8BB8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.05
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.05 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.451, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_BACKHAIR_53=1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RWlhrRDYhySF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EBB021F8511 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-178.cisco.com (unknown [64.101.72.178]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4FC841959; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:58:22 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4E6E2B5F.7030307@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:55:11 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB08B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <89177AB2-F721-47E4-8471-2180EDA10615@voxeo.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB34D@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <496EE152-41F2-49AB-A136-05735FE5A9F9@voxeo.com><101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E31018BF6BE2@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4E540FE2.7020605@alcatel-lucent.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5106423F@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E6595E7.7060503@skype.net><4E661C83.5000103@alcatel-lucent.com> <4E668FB3.9020601@skype.net><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F08FE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><4E67AD3D.9000005@alvestrand.no><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F090F@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><4E686663.1050900@alvestrand.no><4E68CB68.3020100@alcatel-lucent.com><4E68D182.2090003@alvestrand.no><4E68D742.4010203@alcatel-lucent.com><4E68D8B5.7010602@alvestrand.no><4E6915F2.5000007@alcatel-lucent.com> <4E691CC6.9050905@stpeter.im> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0A19@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0A19@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.1
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SIP vs Websocket in RTCWeb [was RE: SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?]
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:53:09 -0000

On 9/12/11 12:57 AM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
> Changing the title for giving the clear context of discussion.
> 
> Peter,
> 
> Thanks for forwarding info about draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol. I
> started this mail thread to know whether RTCWeb1.0 is a unofficial
> RFC3261bis for the line side (endpoint to access server) :-) [I really
> don't know the better term for the line side]. Endpoint may be desktop,
> smart phone (android), laptop, tablet, CPE, etc.,
> 
> Till reading this draft, I assumed websocket as a socket layer for HTTP
> and it is bad assumption :-(. In short, browser is able to create two
> way communication with webserver (which has globally routable address).
> Two browser creating websocket with web servers will be able to
> communicate with each other. This architecture exactly fits in SIP world
> as
>  
>                        SIP UA <---->B2BUA<----->SIP UA
> 
> And resultant as   browser<---> webserver <----> browser. I tend to
> agree with you that Websocket looks as a better choice for this simple
> web architecture as there is no need of identity exchange here because
> webserver knows and authenticated both browsers with the corresponding
> identity. In fact, B2BUA with globally routable address will interop
> better with any endpoint for that matter. The difference comes into
> picture for federation (interop between servers). I'm not very clear
> whether websocket is intended for federation as well or not. Most of the
> discussion RTCWeb points to use SIP as a federation protocol which may
> change later. I'm interested knowing your view here. For this mail, I
> assume that SIP as a federation protocol of RTCWeb1.0 and I'm ready to
> change if it is the right thing to do :-)

I think that the protocol used for server-to-server federation is a
matter for the service providers and thus is not in scope for RTCWeb.
Some s2s links might use SIP, some might use XMPP/Jingle, etc.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/